Don’t be fooled by my tricky, fake-centrist rhetoric

On March 17, while my brain was all a-tangle tournament brackets and Mario Kart, I was… On March 17, while my brain was all a-tangle tournament brackets and Mario Kart, I was surprised to read in The Pitt News that my political stance is a big, fat fraud.

In her column, “Stating opinion as fact and other conservative tricks,” Sabrina Spiher used some of my thoughts on gay marriage to expose a Republican menace — she is confident that I use my smooth writing style to pack conservative views into a centrist box. The general public, naive to this sort of thing, can’t help but smile and nod in the face of it, and many decent folks are ensnared by me, the “false moderate.”

I’ll give you a wink and steal your wallet, tip my hat and walk off with your worldview.

I’ve been rebutted in the paper before, and usually, I leave it be. Seeing my words under fire this time may actually have been less threatening — Spiher’s first two points were so thin I wouldn’t blow my nose in them unless I felt like washing my hands. But her third accusation, about “false moderateness,” is just enough to put an asterisk next to my name, and I don’t want anything to undermine my centrist street-cred.

I’m a moderate, all right, but not really by choice. I would adopt a more extreme stance if I could, but I just can’t seem to find a party that meets my specific needs. I’m opposed to abortion and capital punishment, in favor of affirmative action, free speech and all things environment, up with small business, down with big government, a social conscience in every head and a chicken in every pot. But our politics are about compromise, choosing the side that agrees with you most and inscribing the party line on your soul.

For those of us not running for office, there’s no need to compromise our beliefs just to fit into a dichotomy. You will have to vote eventually, yes, but you might do so without selling your soul to a faction that does not really represent you. The nation cannot be accurately divided into two simple groups. So while the Sabrina Spihers of the world are busy forming the next generation of Franken vs. O’Reilly, it’s OK to leave the room.

If I’ve given extra airtime to my conservative leanings while writing for the paper, it’s probably because there are enough liberal voices. There are two kinds of college columnists in the world, those who lean left and those who lean fluff. I’m sure there’s a well-rounded political environment at Pitt, but it seems only half of it knows how to talk. Conservatives get very little representation, quite possibly because none of them wants the responsibility. So if that leaves me to carry the banner from time to time — even at half-mast — I’ll do it just to mix things up.

Being a leftist on a college campus is like shooting fish in a tea cup. I’ve met a bunch that have earned their liberal stripes, but for every one of these, there seem to be 10 who go with the flow, soaking in that radical college atmosphere and raising a fist for the experience of it. Leftism comes with a rock n’ roll identity; conservatism is for squares. Based on the painful stretches Spiher makes in her column, I believe that she is this latter style of liberal, but it would be presumptuous of me to state it outright, seeing as I don’t know her and have never taken the time to ask about her politics. That’s a mistake only irresponsible journalists make.

I have no sympathy for Spiher’s idea of the liberal victim. She closes her column in false fairness: “To be fair, liberal commentators occasionally use these techniques as well. Unfortunately, they can’t seem to use them as effectively.” Democrats, apparently, would like to be as cold and calculating as Republicans, but it’s just not in their George-Washington-as-a-young-lad nature: “We just can’t do it!” (said with shrugged shoulders and goofy smile).

Spiher’s much-trumpeted we’re-right-about-everything, you-guys-are-wrong-about-everything mindset is as naive as it is tired. She sees a danger in confusing a well-formed idea with a well-written text. This is a high irony, because I cannot think of a more perfectly accurate description of her column. Each point is made with confidence, presented with clarity and served up with a huge chip on its shoulder. Yet each point is eloquently misguided.

The world is not black and white and no amount of left-right finger pointing will make it so. I’ll stay out of it if I can, and keep my personal priorities intact — now back to brackets …

Eric Miller will follow his conscience until he needs support from special interests. Save101@hotmail.com